More About:

Sixty years ago, the average age of the U.S. farmer ranged from the mid to upper 30s. Since then, the average age has risen steadily; 45 years old in 1974 and 58 years old in 2007. Perhaps of more concern is fewer young people are entering the field of agriculture as a career choice, leaving the industry—and the world—concerned about who will feed the world in the years ahead.

In response to the problem, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has responded with many programs designed to entice youth into a career of farming. Under its direct operating loan program, USDA also makes loans to rural youth to establish and operate income-producing projects of modest size in connection with their participation in 4-H clubs, FFA, and similar organizations.

Guaranteed loans are made through private lenders with a guarantee of up to 95 percent of the loss of principal and interest. Direct and guaranteed operating loans can be used to purchase livestock, equipment, feed, seed, and other material essential to a farm or ranch operation.

USDA also provides assistance to beginning farmers and ranchers under its Direct Farm Ownership Down Payment Loan Program, and provides retiring farmers the opportunity to transfer their land to future generations of farmers and ranchers. In addition, USDA targets a portion of its direct and guaranteed operating loan and farm ownership loan funds to beginning farmers and ranchers and Socially Disadvantaged Applicants (SDAs).

Discuss this Article 2

Might there be a link between farming subsidies and the age of farmers? The government hands money to farmers, which has the effect of increasing income and at the same time increasing asset values. So the price of land, equipment and inputs is 'supported'. It's higher than it would be if there were no subsidies.Which makes it harder for people to obtain these assets.
If there were no subsidies, and farming had to live on the income it received from its sales alone, assets would be less expensive. Lower priced assets - including rents - are then affordable by young people borrowing money at market rates.
I wonder if there's much sense in subsidising the industry and then having to further subsidise new entrants. Great if the state or government doesn't know what to do with all the funds it has, but..... today???
Having said that, the same proposals are being make in Britain, and farmers here are equally well supported by government (taxpayers) funds - which account for fully half of net farm income.

I, for one, appreciate your comments farmideas, and find them good to consider. Dialog is always a good thing in helping to solve our nation's problems, as well as helping industry, such as agriculture. I would point out however that farm subsidies have also been one of the major reasons that food prices in the U.S. have remained low, or I should say lower than they might be had it not been for some farm subsidy programs. This may not be true, of course, for commodity crops destined for foreign soil, though even then it may have helped U.S. ag exports to remain competitive at a time when the the global market is being challenged by food imports/exports from a host of new world players. Such competiveness also helps to keep domestic food prices in check.

Having pointed this out, I still think the time has come for producers, government officials and economists to re-evaluate agricultural programs -- all in an effort to boost U.S. agriculture and to support the dedicated producers who provide us food, and help keep our global competiveness sharp and profitable for both the producer and for America in general.

Thank you for reading and contributing to these articles. Such time, I believe, is well spent for us all.